c. When both aircraft in subpara b are in RVSM airspace, and vertically separated by 1,000 feet, if either pilot reports they are unable to maintain RVSM due to turbulence or mountain wave, vector either aircraft to avoid merging with the target of the other aircraft.

While "fishfinder" is not approved phraseology, it is easy enough to understand.

But again, my point is that this response means nothing to the controller and serves no purpose except to add to frequency clutter. Would you agree that one of the main reasons a controller is calling out other traffic to an IFR aircraft is so that IFR separation minimums can legally be supplanted by visual separation?

I have yet to hear on any frequency in any part of the US airspace, "Delta 1234, maintain 'fishfinder' separation with the Bonanza, climb and maintain one four thousand."

But again, my point is that this response means nothing to the controller and serves no purpose except to add to frequency clutter. Would you agree that one of the main reasons a controller is calling out other traffic to an IFR aircraft is so that IFR separation minimums can legally be supplanted by visual separation?

I have yet to hear on any frequency in any part of the US airspace, "Delta 1234, maintain 'fishfinder' separation with the Bonanza, climb and maintain one four thousand."

Peter, you are correct that one purpose of calling traffic allows for visual separation, but that is secondary. The primary purpose of calling traffic to any aircraft is simply to advise the pilot about the other aircraft. The purpose (I believe, although you'd have to check with the rule writers) is so the pilot has a general idea of what is going on around him.

In the US, the two standard, expected responses that actually result in some type of controller action are: "Negative traffic" or "Traffic in sight."

Pilots need to let the controller know that the pilot heard the call. "I've got him on the fishfinder" is not approved phraseology, but it is not necessarily frequency clutter because the pilot is supposed to reply to the controller anyway.

Unless some bigwig somewhere loses their mind, you'll never hear "Delta 1234, maintain 'fishfinder' separation..." . Personally, I would be willing to trust my radar or the pilot's eyes to maintain separation. I would not rely on TCAS.

By the way, just to be semantically technical, visual separation is an IFR separation minima. In the same way that radar allows controllers to use less stringent separation minima than non-radar, visual separation allows for less stringent separation minima.

Unless they're in Class A airspace where visual separation is prohibitted.

Actually, controllers can use visual separation in Class A airspace, but there are more restrictions on it. I've used it before and I liked it.

Peace

Could you elaborate more on this please? From what I was told (and this being from both controllers at Vandenberg and Nellis AFBs plus a controller at SCT), in Class A airspace, it was always the controller's responsibility for maintaining separation of the aircrafts (outside of being underneath the transition altitude).

Pilots need to let the controller know that the pilot heard the call. "I've got him on the fishfinder" is not approved phraseology, but it is not necessarily frequency clutter because the pilot is supposed to reply to the controller anyway.

So, do you as a controller interpret, "I have him on the fishfinder," to mean the same thing as "negative traffic?" It seems to me from the other side of the radio that controllers would continue to provide traffic callouts until they heard "traffic in sight."

By the way, just to be semantically technical, visual separation is an IFR separation minima. In the same way that radar allows controllers to use less stringent separation minima than non-radar, visual separation allows for less stringent separation minima.

Could you elaborate more on this please? From what I was told (and this being from both controllers at Vandenberg and Nellis AFBs plus a controller at SCT), in Class A airspace, it was always the controller's responsibility for maintaining separation of the aircrafts (outside of being underneath the transition altitude).

BL.

I think it's pretty clear if you read the good book:

Quote from: 7110.65R Capter 7

Chapter 7. Visual

Section 1. General

7-1-1. CLASS A AIRSPACE RESTRICTIONS Do not apply visual separation or issue VFR or "VFR-on-top" clearances in Class A airspace.

Maybe that's a recent change but as far as I know the restriction is that you can't use it.

So, do you as a controller interpret, "I have him on the fishfinder," to mean the same thing as "negative traffic?" It seems to me from the other side of the radio that controllers would continue to provide traffic callouts until they heard "traffic in sight."

It would depend on the circumstances, traffic calls are a relatively low priorty. I would probably continue to call traffic if I wasn't busy or if one of the aircraft were climbing or descending toward the other one. Climbing or descending aircraft are more likely to cause a TCAS alert because there is no way to assure TCAS what altitude the aircraft is assigned.

Could you elaborate more on this please? From what I was told (and this being from both controllers at Vandenberg and Nellis AFBs plus a controller at SCT), in Class A airspace, it was always the controller's responsibility for maintaining separation of the aircrafts (outside of being underneath the transition altitude).

BL.

I think it's pretty clear if you read the good book:

Quote from: 7110.65R Capter 7

Chapter 7. Visual

Section 1. General

7-1-1. CLASS A AIRSPACE RESTRICTIONS Do not apply visual separation or issue VFR or "VFR-on-top" clearances in Class A airspace.

Maybe that's a recent change but as far as I know the restriction is that you can't use it.

AWW, man! I knew someone was going to want me to back it up. I'll get back to you. I promise to eat my words if I can't find my proof.

...until that traffic crashes into you or vice versa. I always treat traffic pointouts with high priority, they even saved my life once. From the crew and pax perspective (someone inside the airplane in potential danger), they're very important.

...until that traffic crashes into you or vice versa. I always treat traffic pointouts with high priority, they even saved my life once. From the crew and pax perspective (someone inside the airplane in potential danger), they're very important.

I am absolutely not saying that traffic calls are unimportant! I was making the point that higher priorities exist. If I have to choose between calling traffic between two aircraft that are legally separated and some other type of control instruction, I am going to issue my instructions first. After I have ensured the safety and separation of all my aircraft, then I will start calling traffic.

I got paid "to provide for the safe, orderly and expeditious flow of aircraft..." in that order. (I know you know that, I'm not trying to be contentious. I'm just trying to lay out my thought processes.) I was given a set of rules to follow which gave me the tools to do my job. I was trained to use my judgement to apply those rules, and sometimes (often) I had to use my judgement to prioritze what needed to be done. Some things are simply more important than others.

And now, may I have a drum roll please...

I found what I was looking for, but it is not technically visual separation.

Quote

5-5-7. PASSING OR DIVERGING

b. EN ROUTE. Vertical separation between aircraft may be discontinued when they are on opposite courses as defined in para 1-2-2, Course Definitions; and

1. You are in communications with both aircraft involved; and

2. You tell the pilot of one aircraft about the other aircraft, including position, direction, type; and

3. One pilot reports having seen the other aircraft and that the aircraft have passed each other; and

4. You have observed that the radar targets have passed each other; and

5. You have advised the pilots if either aircraft is classified as a heavy jet/B757 aircraft.

6. Although vertical separation may be discontinued, the requirements of para 5-5-4, Minima, subparas e and f must be applied when operating behind a heavy jet/B757.

EXAMPLE-"Traffic, twelve o'clock, Boeing Seven Twenty Seven, opposite direction. Do you have it in sight?"

(If the answer is in the affirmative):

"Report passing the traffic."

(When pilot reports passing the traffic and the radar targets confirm that the traffic has passed, issue appropriate control instructions.)

You'll notice that there is no mention about flight levels in this paragraph, but it could only be applicable in flight levels because regular visual separation can be used below Class A.